A major legal and administrative controversy over the implementation of the Coastal Regulation Zone(CRZ) notification, 2019, in Kerala is emerging as a significant test case for India’s environmental governance framework, with implications for how coastal development and urban planning regulations are interpreted across the country.
At the centre of the dispute is a key question: should updated Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs) reflect municipal limits and urban areas as they existed on January 18, 2019, when the notification came into force, or as they exist when the CZMP is approved?
The issue gained prominence after Kerala’s updated CZMP was approved on October 16, 2024. Experts argue that the State adopted a restrictive interpretation of the notification by considering only those Category-I grama panchayats notified as of January 2019 for CRZ-II classification. Panchayats declared as Category-I local bodies in 2021 were excluded despite their present urban character.
“The distinction is crucial because CRZ-II status allows greater developmental flexibility in already urbanised coastal stretches, including relaxations for housing, commercial buildings and infrastructure projects. Areas denied CRZ-II classification continue to face stricter coastal restrictions despite their urbanised character,” say CRZ experts at Envirodynamics, a Kochi-based environmental consultancy.
The CRZ notification, 2019, replaced the earlier 2011 notification, but allowed existing CZMPs prepared under the 2011 framework to remain in force until they were updated under the new rules. The notification did not prescribe any deadline for updating the plans, enabling States to adopt the new framework when ready.
A report by Envirodynamics points to a key distinction in the wording of the notification. While the 2019 notification explicitly states that Floor Space Index (FSI) and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) norms applicable in CRZ-II areas would remain “as on the date of this notification,” no such reference appears in the definition of “existing municipal limits or other legally designated urban areas.”
According to principles of statutory interpretation, environmental planners argue, this omission may be significant. The doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius – meaning the express inclusion of one condition implies the exclusion of another – is being cited to argue that urban areas should be interpreted dynamically based on the date the CZMP is updated rather than frozen to January 2019. “This raises a key question: can a CZMP updated in 2024 truly be considered an ‘update’ if it reflects only the 2019 situation rather than present realities? In this context, the interpretation of paragraph 2.2 of the CRZ Notification, 2019 warrants reconsideration,” they said.
‘Purpose undermined’
Critics contend that Kerala’s interpretation undermines the purpose of CRZ-II classification, which is intended for developed and urbanised coastal regions. They argue that several coastal panchayats currently function as urban settlements with dense populations, commercial activity and urban governance systems, yet remain denied the developmental relaxations introduced under the 2019 framework.
The controversy has also triggered broader concerns about environmental governance in India. The issue is reportedly not confined to Kerala, as similar ambiguities have delayed CZMP updates in some other coastal States. According to critics, complex coastal regulations are increasingly being interpreted through a rigid bureaucratic process rather than scientific assessment and legal reasoning.
“The Kerala dispute now raises a larger constitutional question: can administrative interpretation override the wording and intent of environmental law? The answer could influence the future interpretation of India’s coastal governance framework,” experts add.
Published – May 16, 2026 04:54 pm IST
